• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inconvenient Fact: Combat Teams With Women Are Less Effective?

Please check all options you believe to be true:

  • 1. Women in the military should not be excluded from combat operations.

    Votes: 12 35.3%

  • 2. Women in combat increase the risk to the troops.

    Votes: 15 44.1%

  • 3. Unnecessary 'humanitarian' restrictions on our fighting forces cause needless injury or death.

    Votes: 13 38.2%

  • 4. "Humanitarian' restrictions on fighting forces should remain in place.

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • 5. I have to qualify my answers and will do so in my post(s).

    Votes: 10 29.4%
  • Total voters
    34
cpwill said:
Well, there is an easy way to tell. Are you willing to risk your child's life to find out?
Click to expand...

It would be up to them. I dont think I would consent to my minor child of either gender to join the military.
 
Lursa said:
Women should have to meet the same standards as men in a combat unit. If they dont, then they shouldnt be included.
Click to expand...

Nobody is questioning that. But the argument made is that such a miniscule percentage of women CAN meet the same standards as men in a combat unit that it is a waste of time and effort trying to identify that tiny few. The argument is that we should not expend time, effort, resources, etc. trying to identify that miniscule percentage.

The military should be designed and operated as efficiently and effectively as possible to produce the most efficient and effective fighting force possible with the least risk to those who volunteer to be in it. It should not be subject to social experimentation or political correctness just so the extremely rare woman who might be able to qualify on the same basis as men will be able to do so. And to reduce standards to accommodate more women is, in my opinion, criminal.

Maybe if a woman undergoes training independently and shows up at recruitment with a credible certificate verifying her capabilities, she could be given a shot. Otherwise I think combat should be limited to those we know have the best shot to meet the significant standards required.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Any woman that can meet the same standards that a man must meet to qualify for a combat role, should be welcomed into the force as a needed addition just as any man that meets the qualifications would be.

Having women in the "trenches" is seen by some as tempting fate regarding sexual encounters... Not gonna happen. At least, not in a way that would hinder the mission or endanger other troops. I've been in combat situations where we had female medics that got stuck in a bad spot and couldn't get out. The LAST thing any of us were thinking about was bumping uglies with our nasty arses in the dirt.

Some also say that men will endanger themselves trying to protect the women. Any man that has been on combat will tell you that it makes no difference whether their buddy is a male or female, they will do what is required to protect their buddy from harm. No gay man has ever cared more for their "boyfriend" (non-sexually) than a combat soldier feels for his buddies in the trenches. It's just the way it is.

As for "humanitarian" rules? War, when executed properly, is the very definition of inhumane. Politically correct, restrictive rules of engagement have been killing US troops ever since Vietnam, and I don't see that changing anytime soon - which is a sad waste of blood and treasure. The military should be simply given a goal, to win, and then do as William Shakespeare wrote in his play, Julius Caesar - "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war". Then step back (politicians and bleeding hearts) and let it happen. Victory should be the only goal, and the only restriction.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you a bit here. While no doubt you are right that while out on a patrol or any other combat op there won't be any hooking up going on, that changed the minute you get back to the FOB let alone back to garrison. I have seen it all to often down range. Put one or two chicks surrounded by a ton of dudes for months at a time and it will happen. That's a fact. I have seen it when CSTs go out to my teams VSO site. If you don't think that one or two of the guys hooking up with the 1 chick in the platoon can lead to discipline problems as well as a loss of cohesion but it's something I have seen first hand. The SEAL platoon we were located with at the SOTF on a different trip got their OIC sent home after he and another SEAL got into it after the chick dumped him for an enlisted guy. If it's going to happen to older more mature folks in the military it's going to happen a ton more in the infantry.
 
Back when Germany was full of NATO there was an annual infantry competition- I forget what it was called. Might be interesting to enter an all-female unit in such a competition and see if they beat any all-men units.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Second, I addressed the People magazine article in another thread. I don't think it's credible. People magazine is a gossip magazine, and if you read the article, at no point are their sources listed. It's always "our sources say", like it's gossip from the water cooler. I want to see a real report from a real news agency showing evidence that standards were lowered to accommodate. 2 out of 17 women graduated, while about 98 out of 400 men graduated, that's a 12% graduation rate for the women, and a 25% graduation rate from the men. So women were dramatically more likely to fail than men, which would make sense. I'd also argue that it's a lot easier to get a Ranger slot as a man, so the average woman who gets it are likely to be more serious about the endeavor.

So we have a class where the graduation rate for the men was about what we'd expect to see from the male candidates, so how exactly were the women in the course pushed along? Were they taken aside and given pizza parties and extra sleep while the men were out patrolling on empty stomaches? I'd like to hear some concrete things that were done. Right now people are speculating simply because they don't like the idea.

If I remember correctly, you were infantry as well. Which means you saw a lot of really horrible male infantrymen in your day. Do you really think there are no women on the planet who could be better than the overweight Alabaman infantry private with an IQ of 75?



The line of what is and isn't combat has been arbitrarily violated about a million times the past 14 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the line exactly? Is the female apache pilot hovering above me covering my ass in combat or non-combat? What about the women who ran supply convoys to our remote COP, repelling road-side ambushes, was that combat? Women have been effectively in combat for a while now.
Click to expand...

From what I have been told, several of the way the course differed for the women than your average male is not only did they get more recycles than men get before being dropped but while on hold between courses they were not made to do the same suck fest that normal students do. They also were allowed to recycle after failing a patrol and doing very poorly on peers. That is almost always a drop for a man. Basically I was told they stopped looking at peers for them. But like I said I don't know this as fact but it's what I have been told by a friend who is a RI down there. They also said several of the same things stated in the people article which I brought up in a post a while before that article came out. The fact that the article says a lot of the same things I heard from a friend makes me believe there is at least some truth to it.

Finally while you are right that the kind of what is combat may have blurred but the line of what is infantry really hasn't. There is as you know a world of difference between driving in a convoy and getting ambushed and going on 4 day patrols to seek, close and destroy the enemy. Just because you can do one does not mean you can do the other.
 
Sykes said:
How does Israel handle it?
Click to expand...

They don't. The female "infantry" in the Israeli military are little more than glorified border guards, kept far away from "frontline" combat.

They actually serve a role similar to Military Police in the United States' military; a job in which females have been serving for decades now.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Up until 2000, women were only allowed to serve behind the scenes...clerks, instructors, etc. now, apparently, they are allowed in 88 to 92% of all roles, though they are only active in 60-some percent.

Did they relax requirements? Don't know. You?
Click to expand...

The "combat" females in the Israeli military are limited to a single battalion, which is relegated to non-combat border patrol duties on the opposite side of the country from that which sees regular, or intense, action.

Their "frontline" status is largely a matter of semantics, rather than actual reality.
 
Gathomas88 said:
They don't. The female "infantry" in the Israeli military are little more than glorified border guards, kept far away from "front line" combat.
Click to expand...

Before we decide if you're an expert in what constitutes infantry... what was your MOS?
 
KevinKohler said:
Here's what we should do.




Have all the ladies out there that are clamoring for a spot on the front lines go through boot camp and whatever else training, with the standards set for them as they currently are.

And have an equal number of randomly selected men do the same, but with the standards set to what they were prior to finagling with them to accommodate women.

Take the the two teams, and pit them against each other.


See who wins.



End argument.
Click to expand...

That's basically what the Marine Corps just did. :lol:

The simple fact of the matter is that the women lost, badly. They've been losing across the board, basically without exception. The PC crowd still doesn't want to accept it.

They likely never will.

Lord knows that they'll be the first to throw their arms up in the air and cry foul, however, when these women they're clamoring to have thrown into the meat-grinder start coming home in thousands of body bags, because some all male force which is actually run like a military, rather than a half-assed social experiment, had its rough and dirty way with us. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Any woman that can meet the same standards that a man must meet to qualify for a combat role, should be welcomed into the force as a needed addition just as any man that meets the qualifications would be.

Having women in the "trenches" is seen by some as tempting fate regarding sexual encounters... Not gonna happen. At least, not in a way that would hinder the mission or endanger other troops. I've been in combat situations where we had female medics that got stuck in a bad spot and couldn't get out. The LAST thing any of us were thinking about was bumping uglies with our nasty arses in the dirt.

Some also say that men will endanger themselves trying to protect the women. Any man that has been on combat will tell you that it makes no difference whether their buddy is a male or female, they will do what is required to protect their buddy from harm. No gay man has ever cared more for their "boyfriend" (non-sexually) than a combat soldier feels for his buddies in the trenches. It's just the way it is.

As for "humanitarian" rules? War, when executed properly, is the very definition of inhumane. Politically correct, restrictive rules of engagement have been killing US troops ever since Vietnam, and I don't see that changing anytime soon - which is a sad waste of blood and treasure. The military should be simply given a goal, to win, and then do as William Shakespeare wrote in his play, Julius Caesar - "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war". Then step back (politicians and bleeding hearts) and let it happen. Victory should be the only goal, and the only restriction.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but...the Air Force must have made some serious changes if they now have front-line combat units fighting shoulder to shoulder with Infantry or Marine units.

Back in my day the Air Force supplied Fighter pilots, Bomber pilots, and Close Air Support pilots and their crews. Aside from that there were air base security units but...again not meaning any offense, they seemed to be glorified Air Police when I encountered them. Maybe you can update me?

braindrain said:
I have to disagree with you a bit here. While no doubt you are right that while out on a patrol or any other combat op there won't be any hooking up going on, that changed the minute you get back to the FOB let alone back to garrison. I have seen it all to often down range. Put one or two chicks surrounded by a ton of dudes for months at a time and it will happen. That's a fact. I have seen it when CSTs go out to my teams VSO site. If you don't think that one or two of the guys hooking up with the 1 chick in the platoon can lead to discipline problems as well as a loss of cohesion but it's something I have seen first hand. The SEAL platoon we were located with at the SOTF on a different trip got their OIC sent home after he and another SEAL got into it after the chick dumped him for an enlisted guy. If it's going to happen to older more mature folks in the military it's going to happen a ton more in the infantry.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Furthermore, while there may not be any "hooking up" in the middle of a firefight, it's human nature to be a little more concerned with someone you are involved with and that will be a distraction in the field.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
That's news to me. My understanding was (back in the day) you get recycled if you are injured. You get dropped and can reapply again for the full course if you fail any section of the course. That's why it was called "FAIL."
Really? Well a credible source has stepped up in terms of the Marine study. Marine war hero: SecNav 'off base' on women in combat

He talked about the results of the recent trial study, factually and without being derogatory about the female participants. He is catching hell for it.

As for the Army? Things must be very, very different today from back when I served if you honestly expect low ranking enlisted or company-grade officers who witness this stuff to step up and identify themselves. People are held to a greater level of accountability in the Military. You don't get to naysay your superiors. If the General says this is the way it is, then THAT"S "the way it is!" So I DO find the statements credible.

Actually NO. I did not see any "really horrible male infantrymen" in my day. They cut the mustard or found themselves either transferred into non-combat units or discharged for the good of the service.

I can't speak to the army of today, but I'd suggest that what you saw in the Mid-East was the result of mobilizing National Guard units. Such units consisted of literally "week-end warriors" prior to the mobilization.

One weekend a month, and three or so weeks of annual training. During the 11 weekends a year they just report to their guard armory and clean weapons, do some maintenance, a little close order drill, maybe some classes, etc. For three weeks they go to a field training exercise. The rest of the year, they are guys you see working anywhere; store clerks, laborers, police officers, w/e.

Some will stay in shape and be all they can be, other's? Not so much.

Meanwhile, I challenge you to find an "overweight Alabaman private with an IQ of 75" in any elite combat force. (Ranger, Airborne, S.O.F., SEAL, Force Recon, etc.) PLEASE point one out.
Click to expand...

We're not talking only about "elite combat forces" we're talking about combat period. I simply don't believe that the best women in the world are worse than the worst male infantryman. You can dance around it all you want, but you know there are a lot of really low quality men in combat arms, yet we can't let any women into anything because we suddenly give a **** about the quality of our fighting force? SOME women, not necessarily a lot, are more than qualified for combat arms and would excel in it. For a while we were taking felons with neck tattoos so we could get bodies on the ground in Iraq, but we can't take motivated women who passed Ranger school? I think it's nonsense.

Who would you rather take to war, one of these two Ranger graduates, or some overweight country bumpkin?

braindrain said:
From what I have been told, several of the way the course differed for the women than your average male is not only did they get more recycles than men get before being dropped but while on hold between courses they were not made to do the same suck fest that normal students do. They also were allowed to recycle after failing a patrol and doing very poorly on peers. That is almost always a drop for a man. Basically I was told they stopped looking at peers for them. But like I said I don't know this as fact but it's what I have been told by a friend who is a RI down there. They also said several of the same things stated in the people article which I brought up in a post a while before that article came out. The fact that the article says a lot of the same things I heard from a friend makes me believe there is at least some truth to it.

Finally while you are right that the kind of what is combat may have blurred but the line of what is infantry really hasn't. There is as you know a world of difference between driving in a convoy and getting ambushed and going on 4 day patrols to seek, close and destroy the enemy. Just because you can do one does not mean you can do the other.
Click to expand...

I still disagree that the standards were different until there's some evidence to support it. I've personally known several people recycled multiple times through Ranger phases, and I've been recycled in several schools of my own. There are a lot of people making wild speculations in order to fit their world views. My point is simply that there are plenty of terrible, idiotic male infantrymen who shouldn't be in combat, are we really to believe that no woman could ever be better than the worst male infantryman? Who would you rather take to war, one of these two women or some overweight 18 year old private with an IQ of 75?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Who would you rather take to war, one of these two Ranger graduates, or some overweight country bumpkin?
Click to expand...

The overweight country bumpkin, every time.

1. I can either get him into shape with diet, exercise, and extra training or cause him to quit/get discharged trying. Try that with a female and "discrimination" or "harassment" complaints will occur.

2. He would integrate without any issues concerning sex, pregnancy, or a monthly period. Just the normal male pecking order types.

3. IQ of 75? Then he has no problem taking and obeying orders, or concerns about promotion to a leadership position. Any that do occur can again be handled through normal discipline without "discrimination" or "harassment" complaints.

RabidAlpaca said:
For a while we were taking felons with neck tattoos so we could get bodies on the ground in Iraq...
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard this. My response is the same as in the law forums. If a person has paid their debt to society then as far as I'm concerned they are square, and should have the same rights as any other citizen. The Army instills discipline, something I think many people who became criminals sorely lacked. It also allows them to return to civilian life with pride and a better outlook that might well serve to prevent recidivism. Still, if they are problematic? The stockade and a dishonorable discharge like anyone else.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Any woman in combat should have met the exact standards men must meet. And when we, as a country, are willing to lower everyone's standards so women feel they're equal? Well, we should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Any woman in the military should have to meet the exact same standards.
 
MaggieD said:
No, I don't agree. A woman who is in medicine shouldn't have to climb walls.
Click to expand...

You are correct. They don't, and neither do men who serve in combat service support. Most medical fields are all combat service support.

The exception is the combat medic who serves out on the front line. I have no problem with women in this field if they can keep up with the fitness and weapons training standards. Why? Simply because their role is viewed as a medical support.

They are not expected to fight unless in self-defense. They are protected and cared for by the combat units they are assigned to as critical assets. No soldier want's to lose that combat medic, who might be the asset needed to save life and limb when wounded.
 
The problem with Williams is assuming sex is a defining factor in physical abilities and this is simply not true. Im also guessing many people voicing their opinion have not served in theater therefore the opinions are not worth much more than a grain of sand in the desert. Combat units are best formed by the cohesive and physical qualities regardless of sex and if we simply stopped the crotch watch obsession the world would be a little less ugly.
 
Brischera said:
The problem with Williams is assuming sex is a defining factor in physical abilities and this is simply not true. Im also guessing many people voicing their opinion have not served in theater therefore the opinions are not worth much more than a grain of sand in the desert. Combat units are best formed by the cohesive and physical qualities regardless of sex and if we simply stopped the crotch watch obsession the world would be a little less ugly.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of the folks warning that this is a bad idea have been overseas. Myself included. You are right that combat units are formed by cohesion and adding one female into a platoon full of collage age males is not going to help that.
Combat is ugly and that's not going to change and feel good efforts to make things fair will only make it worse.
 
MaggieD said:
No, I don't agree. A woman who is in medicine shouldn't have to climb walls.
Click to expand...

But she may at some point have to climb the wall to do her job. Otherwise someone who can climb a wall will have to do her job or halt his job to help her over the wall.
 
jimbo said:
But she may at some point have to climb the wall to do her job. Otherwise someone who can climb a wall will have to do her job or halt his job to help her over the wall.
Click to expand...

And someday a guy in the field may have to deal with an amputation. Therefore, everybody gets tested in medical knowledge. Don't pass? Don't serve. Right?
 
braindrain said:
Actually a lot of the folks warning that this is a bad idea have been overseas. Myself included. You are right that combat units are formed by cohesion and adding one female into a platoon full of collage age males is not going to help that.
Combat is ugly and that's not going to change and feel good efforts to make things fair will only make it worse.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about an arbitrary addition of one female into a platoon?

When I was fighting in Iraq we had some guys that were so worthless we actually removed the firing pins from their M-16s because we could not trust them due to their inabilities. Do you think there are no women in the world that could do better? The decisions for deployment should not be based on what people are carrying between their legs.
 
Brischera said:
Who said anything about an arbitrary addition of one female into a platoon?

When I was fighting in Iraq we had some guys that were so worthless we actually removed the firing pins from their M-16s because we could not trust them due to their inabilities. Do you think there are no women in the world that could do better? The decisions for deployment should not be based on what people are carrying between their legs.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. No one here has stated that all men are capable of being combat troops. It's also recognized that in an all-volunteer force during a period of actual combat there will be men who want to serve, and might pass the basic requirements, but suck in combat. :shrug:

In such cases it is up to the leaders at company and battalion level to focus efforts to bring them up to standards.

But please correct me if I am wrong; my understanding is that there weren't any women in combat line units in Iraq. So did you serve with any women in your unit during your combat time in Iraq? If so, were you in a line combat unit (infantry, armor, etc.) or is your experience with combat support units?

If not, why would you think that all the issues raised by various active and veteran combat arms service members would NOT be a problem as you state with such certainty?
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on the individual, not the gender/sex. All I see in the OP is someone is complaining because some devildogs couldn't keep it in their pants.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I think it depends on the individual, not the gender/sex. All I see in the OP is someone is complaining because some devildogs couldn't keep it in their pants.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their "opinion." Unfortunately, what people "think" as opposed to what really "is" are two different things entirely.

Those of us who have served in combat arms and have seen women in the support services are very aware of the problems they have caused with cohesion and effectiveness both within their own units and among soldiers in combat units they come in contact with.

What we have observed and experienced should carry greater weight than what other people "think."
 
Captain Adverse said:
The overweight country bumpkin, every time.

1. I can either get him into shape with diet, exercise, and extra training or cause him to quit/get discharged trying. Try that with a female and "discrimination" or "harassment" complaints will occur.

2. He would integrate without any issues concerning sex, pregnancy, or a monthly period. Just the normal male pecking order types.

3. IQ of 75? Then he has no problem taking and obeying orders, or concerns about promotion to a leadership position. Any that do occur can again be handled through normal discipline without "discrimination" or "harassment" complaints.

Yes, I've heard this. My response is the same as in the law forums. If a person has paid their debt to society then as far as I'm concerned they are square, and should have the same rights as any other citizen. The Army instills discipline, something I think many people who became criminals sorely lacked. It also allows them to return to civilian life with pride and a better outlook that might well serve to prevent recidivism. Still, if they are problematic? The stockade and a dishonorable discharge like anyone else.
Click to expand...

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You can reform the most out of shape, unintelligent, neck-tattooed felon, but all females intrinsically have PMS and EO related burdens that are insurmountable. There is absolutely no reason to continue talking to someone who thinks like that, as I won't be able to convince you of anything. Rest assured, women will be integrated into combat arms, and it won't be the destruction of our military.

braindrain said:
From what I have been told, several of the way the course differed for the women than your average male is not only did they get more recycles than men get before being dropped but while on hold between courses they were not made to do the same suck fest that normal students do. They also were allowed to recycle after failing a patrol and doing very poorly on peers. That is almost always a drop for a man. Basically I was told they stopped looking at peers for them. But like I said I don't know this as fact but it's what I have been told by a friend who is a RI down there. They also said several of the same things stated in the people article which I brought up in a post a while before that article came out. The fact that the article says a lot of the same things I heard from a friend makes me believe there is at least some truth to it.

Finally while you are right that the kind of what is combat may have blurred but the line of what is infantry really hasn't. There is as you know a world of difference between driving in a convoy and getting ambushed and going on 4 day patrols to seek, close and destroy the enemy. Just because you can do one does not mean you can do the other.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence of the water cooler gossip you've heard? People get recycled in Ranger school all the time, for a multitude of reasons. Frankly I don't understand the argument that we should let in any asshole who can hold a rifle but no woman could ever meet that standard.

Abbazorkzog said:
I think it depends on the individual, not the gender/sex. All I see in the OP is someone is complaining because some devildogs couldn't keep it in their pants.
Click to expand...
Captain Adverse said:
Everyone is entitled to their "opinion." Unfortunately, what people "think" as opposed to what really "is" are two different things entirely.

Those of us who have served in combat arms and have seen women in the support services are very aware of the problems they have caused with cohesion and effectiveness both within their own units and among soldiers in combat units they come in contact with.

What we have observed and experienced should carry greater weight than what other people "think."
Click to expand...

Translation:

Captain Adverse: I was in the infantry, so I can dismiss 3.5 billion females as being completely incapable of combat. You should shut up, civilian, as I obviously know everything about this subject.

Rabid Alpaca: I was in the infantry, I don't think there's anything that intrinsically prevents all women from being capable of combat.
 
Gathomas88 said:
The "combat" females in the Israeli military are limited to a single battalion, which is relegated to non-combat border patrol duties on the opposite side of the country from that which sees regular, or intense, action.

Their "frontline" status is largely a matter of semantics, rather than actual reality.
Click to expand...

Mostly correct. However; There is another, recently formed mixed-gender battalion that is tasked with guarding the border with Jordan(Absolutely nothing to guard there), just as the Caracal battalion you've referred to is tasked with guarding the border with Egypt. And while these two areas are considered to be quiet compared to other sectors, it's not like they never see combat or that their training is for nothing. In the case of total war they are also expected to function as combat units per se. There are plenty of reasons why women are not allowed to serve in pure frontline combat units in the IDF, all very practical. There are however female pilots of helicopters and fighter jets, which is known to be a job far more demanding and complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom